https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115944
Guinevere Larsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115944
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
With -fPIC GCC assumes that a different definition of the functions might be
interposed later, so it emits a call (and assumes you're going to link to
another object which provides a definition without und
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115944
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Ah, Jonathan beat me to it :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115944
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115944
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Dereferencing a null pointer has undefined behaviour, so the compiler can
assume that function is never called. I don't think that's a bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115944
Guinevere Larsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|debug |c++
--- Comment #1 from Guinevere La
